Do electric fields also generate smaller electric fields?

AI Thread Summary
Electric fields are generated by charged objects, but the fields themselves do not possess charge. The misconception arises from interpreting field lines as repelling each other, which can lead to the incorrect conclusion that fields are charged. While electric fields can induce secondary fields through interactions with matter, this occurs due to the response of existing charges rather than any inherent charge within the fields themselves. For instance, when an electric field is applied to a dielectric, it causes polarization, resulting in a secondary electric field. Thus, while fields can create additional fields, they do so through the influence on charges in their vicinity, not because they are charged entities.
polaris12
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
*first time posting on here*

Hi, firstly I am a high school junior taking physics and I find it very interesting and plan to major in it. Now, today my teacher was explaining electric fields and said that all charged objects generate them around themselves. He then said that fields themselves were charged. After thinking about it, I realized that if this were true, then there should be electric fields made by other fields, ad infinitum. Firstly, is my reasoning correct, and secondly, if it is not, what was my mistake?

thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
polaris12 said:
He then said that fields themselves were charged.
You need to ask him to clarify what he meant. Fields don't have charge.
 
he showed us a diagram where there was a positively charged rod near a negatively charged rod. he then drew field lines, and the ones on the outside were curved outward because they were repelling, according to him, which I assume means they have charge. Exactly where is the mistake in this reasoning?
 
polaris12 said:
he showed us a diagram where there was a positively charged rod near a negatively charged rod. he then drew field lines, and the ones on the outside were curved outward because they were repelling, according to him, which I assume means they have charge. Exactly where is the mistake in this reasoning?
The first mistake is the statement that the field lines are repelling each other. That seems an odd thing to say. I can see how that might lead you to conclude that fields have charge, if you think that only charges can repel.

Charges are surrounded by electric (and, if moving, magnetic) fields, but the fields themselves do not contain charges.
 
But, in a manner that you are not intending, the fields do generate secondary fields when they interact with matter. For example, if I induce an electric field across a dielectric, I cause polarization within the dielectric. That is, the molecules inside the dielectric become dipoles, the charges in the molecules shift slightly so that there is a local positive and local negative charge. This causes a secondary electric field and, when added to the original field that I induced, gives you the total field that you observe when you place the dielectric into the original field.

So fields can induce secondary fields, which induce tertiary fields, and so forth. Not because the fields are charged, but because any existing charges in the environment subjected to these fields respond to the fields and can create new fields.
 
I was using the Smith chart to determine the input impedance of a transmission line that has a reflection from the load. One can do this if one knows the characteristic impedance Zo, the degree of mismatch of the load ZL and the length of the transmission line in wavelengths. However, my question is: Consider the input impedance of a wave which appears back at the source after reflection from the load and has traveled for some fraction of a wavelength. The impedance of this wave as it...
Back
Top